This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Reverse debugging for arm baremetal targets?
- From: Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>
- To: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>, Terry Guo <flameroc at gmail dot com>, gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:33:35 +0800
- Subject: Re: Reverse debugging for arm baremetal targets?
- References: <CAGbRaL4P+nYgwQZHQYGbAsoCGd--+0NyVzfL8+uOFdd51TVF1w at mail dot gmail dot com> <CANFwon0sYZbXVfFDSJF-LyretWZcPgUKyNSWJTsDosNH9t7iBw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAGbRaL4_DQ9fYXX8pj6x8rwXbMBsS7ZCi2D2jj_hSSvv-iZfdA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130722063842 dot GA24373 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <51ECDF5D dot 6010207 at codesourcery dot com>
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 07/22/2013 02:38 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>>
>> But the OS dependent part seems to be missing there:
>> arm-tdep.h:
>> /* Parse swi insn args, sycall record. */
>> int (*arm_swi_record) (struct regcache *regcache);
>> - which does not seem to be set anywhere
>>
>
> I raised this question during the code review, and Oza (the author) wanted
> to do them in phase 3, which handles OS related stuff, such as syscall.
> What we have in trunk is phase 2.
>
>
>> So the current set_gdbarch_process_record initialization could be possibly
>> moved to arm-tdep.c. But I did not play more with it.
>
>
> Right, the existing Oza's work in trunk is about ARM reversed debugging,
> without OS stuff. Probably we should call set_gdbarch_process_record in
> arm-tdep.c, but not sure how good or bad the results are.
I think you should call it arm process record but not reverse debug.
Reverse debug depend on the target support but I don't think call prec
as reverse debug is right.
Thanks,
Hui
>
> --
> Yao (éå)